It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Black's Law Dictionary is a Hoax and there is no such thing as "capitus diminutio"

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Maxmars
Excellent thread! Starred and Flagged.

I have often been faced with CT's that insisted this was a solid fact. But I always believed that such a doctrine could not be effected into law without a direct assertion to that end within the legal system. Maybe then, in times of Empire, but not now.

You are in an EMPIRE only you dont see it.

The USA , CANADA , AUSTRALIA all are corporations that belong to the English Queen. In Europa most Kings and Queens made deals with the English Queen so over here we have the same problem.

The people of the United States actually have two national flags: one for our military government and another for the civil. Each one has fifty stars in its canton and thirteen red and white stripes, but there are several important differences.

Although most Americans think of the Stars and Stripes as their only flag, it is actually for military affairs only. The other one, meant by its makers for wider use (peacetime), has vertical stripes with blue stars on a white field. You can see this design, which bears civil jurisdiction, in the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs flags, but their service insignias replace the fifty stars.

History book publishers contribute to the public's miseducation by always picturing the flag in military settings, creating the impression that the one with horizontal stripes is the only one there is. They don't actually lie; they just tell half the truth. For example, the "first American flag" they show Betsy Ross sewing at George Washington's request, was for the Revolution - of course it was military.

The U.S. government hasn't flown the civil flag since the Civil War, as that war is still going on. Peace has never been declared, nor have hostilities against the people ended. The government is still operating under quasi-military rule.


posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by PPLwakeUP
Madhatter I admire your research skills but the name in CAPS conspiracy is really not a HOAX.
I personally know people here in The Netherlands that never ever have paid TAX, FINES or any other amount of many to entities that fall under admiralty law in other words the law of commerce.
For more info read my threads.

So this nonsense works in the Dutch legal system as well does it? Care to cite the law involved? The cases your "friends" won? How come everyone isn't doing it? Surely an enterprising lawyer could advertise to get you out of paying any taxes or fines and make a fortune?

"Capitus" has nothing to with capital letters - which have no bearing in US (or any other) courts.

Check out Idiot Legal Arguments - quite a useful site. Here's one example of the cases cited:

Vos v. Boyle (WD Mich unpub 4/11/95); Liebig v. Kelley-Allee (EDNC 1996) 923 F.Supp 778; Boyce v. CIR (9/25/96) TC Memo 1996-439 aff’d (9th Cir 1997) 122 F3d 1069; Smith v. Kitchen (10th Cir 1997) 156 F3d 1025, 97 USTC para 50107; US v. J.F. Heard (ND WV 1996) 952 F.Supp 329; J. Napier v. Jonas (WD Mich unpub 2/10/95); Wacker v. Crow (10th Cir unpub 7/1/99); Rosenheck & Co. Inc. v. US ex rel IRS & Kostich (ND Okla unpub 4/9/97) 79 AFTR2d 2715 (court explicitly found that perp was the same person as his name typed in all-caps and without punctuation); ("claims because his name is in all capital letters on the summons, he is not subject to the summons. ... completely without merit, patently frivolous, and will be rejected without expending any more of this court's resources")

posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


Please watch the videos of Irene Gravenhorst on Google video.
She has countless of videos were she confronts police officers and bankers and gangsters that she is not in their admiralty/marine law juristicion.

Or read my threads...


posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
Hay blacks law book isnt a hoax i looked a a coppy of it on google books and the coreality thing wasn't evn in their and john a nokes or w/e is the old form of john doe wich in fact is used in court alot also i found the C.D.M.'s in sevrl* diffrnt* law dictionaries wich explains what they are on and all of them explain that when C.D> maxima is in effect you lose family rights loose rights of citizenship and librity so yeah it is real and you all should watch a movie called esoteric agenda it is well documented watch and look up some of the facts for ur self if u dont believe them

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by logician magician

You confuse a person as being different from a fictitious entity. A person is a fictitious entity. Therefore your questionable statements that pose as questions contradict each other. It's like it never should have existed. So your reply is misinformation.

posted on Jan, 8 2009 @ 03:11 PM
OP, You do realize that if you track back the story to it's "original source" you get THIS SITE, which provides no original source at all.

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.” Benjamin Franklin

Especially pertinent with the internet

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:43 PM
I Go By Diogenes (can't sign in)

“He told me that he'd never heard of it before and that it was absolute baloney.”

Kindly apply critical thought to the above, '-heard-of' equates to non-existence?

Non sequitur: It does not follow!
Any individual’s ignorance: lack of knowledge, does not prove or disprove.
It is opinion not fact
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p. There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.

[Joe McCarthy] announced that he had penetrated "Truman's iron curtain of secrecy he proposed forthwith to present 81 cases… Cases of exactly what? "I am only giving the Senate," he said, "cases in which it is clear there is a definite Communist connection…persons whom I consider to be Communists in the State Department." … Of Case 40, he said, "I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency…that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections."

Source: Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960), pp. 106-107. Cited in: Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Fourth Edition) (1972), p. 88.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 07:15 PM

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by Mad_Hatter

Black's Law Dictionary is not a hoax. It is a real volume with well-respected definitions. The term capitis diminutio minimo/medio/maximo is real Latin. It would imply the head diminished minimally, medially, or maximally. The head could refer to anything, such as a captain, the beginning, or what stands as the representation of some thing. I have not been able to find reference to a person, but it is plausible. THe Hebrew word ROSH also means head, but it also can refer to beginning, principle, main point, leader, etc. This is prevalent thinking among ancient languages such as Greek, Sumerian, Sanskrit, Mayan, etc.

In addition, I have asked three lawyers about this. One was a Barrister in London and is now practicing estate law in Utah after passing the Arizona bar. The other lawyer is also in estate law, while the other friend is in civil law. None of them have heard the term. However, they do not deny its plausibility, nor do they admit knowing the meaning. They would admit that using this excuse in a court of law would be an ignorable technicality, unless evidence of its definition, reference, prior precedents, and intent could be cited.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by roadgravel

This is my first post on a forum. Thanks for the comments and dialogue, this is very interesting to get more perspective on this issue. After reading through the posts I can deduce two things:

1. Conspiracy Theories and Controversies rarely ever have a smoking gun... So to be able to find something online or upon a quick search of the term would be SURPRISING. So the fact you all are looking and expecting to find evidence that spells it out for you is ABSURD! And just because you cannot find evidence doesn't mean you should dismiss it... ESPECIALLY since the PROOF on the other side (all legal documents with CAPS) is in your face. If the occasional legal document came through WITHOUT CAPS, then this would be a NON-ISSUE. There is a reason for everything.

2. There is a reason they call land in Canada "Crown" land, to give the impression that it belongs to the Queen. The Crown in fact is a Corporation run by a board of directors who manage the Queens assets. The Federal Reserve is no more Federal (Government run) than Federal Express, yet you don't see any documentation stating this is bold writing anywhere. Same with paying taxes and the IRS law that says you have to... Try finding evidence of these as well in COMMON places!

I appreciate all of your opinions and investigations. What this issue shows is that people are concerned and looking for answers on their own. I only hope that we take more care into the answers we take in and the answers we dismiss. Good luck to you all, I look forward to learning more.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 02:32 PM
Few pointers perhaps ;


The name you think to be yours ; it isn't .

It belongs to the government and you are holding a title rights to it . ( unless if you have copyrighted it )

The date of birth for yourself , you can never " know " ; because you weren't there in full mental capacity and / or sound mind . ( diminished capacity )

If you do appoint an attorney , basically , you are declaring that you are a " WARD " of the court and law system .

If you care to look at the definition of WARD ;

In law, a ward is someone placed under the protection of a legal guardian.
A court may take responsibility for the legal protection of an individual, usually either a child or incapacitated person, in which case the ward is known as a ward of the court, a ward of the state or formerly as a ward in Chancery.

if you act like a child or an incapacitated person ; then you are one .

aren't you ?

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:33 PM
I would like to make the point to mad hatter that laywers, even really expensive ones, have a duty to the courts as much as they do to the clients they represent.
There was a comment in here somewhere asking "if it were true, why wouldn't lawyers exploit this knowledge and get people out of paying fines and stuff?"
The fact is that it benifits the lawyers and courts much more to keep us oblivious to the fact that we HAVE people and are NOT people, then it does to make a few bucks by telling a client he can become the principal creditor for his birth certificate, thus destroying all repeat business.
If everyone knew about capitis diminutio and started to break from the law and government, then both these institutions would crumble. can you imagine politicians and lawyers wanting this information to come out?
I think not.
It'd be like a drug company telling its consumers that there are cheap healthy natural alternatives to the dangerous chemicals they selling to "treat" illness.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Cosick
I would like to make the point to mad hatter that laywers, even really expensive ones, have a duty to the courts as much as they do to the clients they represent.
There was a comment in here somewhere asking "if it were true, why wouldn't lawyers exploit this knowledge and get people out of paying fines and stuff?"
The fact is that it benifits the lawyers and courts much more to keep us oblivious to the fact that we HAVE people and are NOT people, then it does to make a few bucks by telling a client he can become the principal creditor for his birth certificate, thus destroying all repeat business.
If everyone knew about capitis diminutio and started to break from the law and government, then both these institutions would crumble. can you imagine politicians and lawyers wanting this information to come out?
I think not.
It'd be like a drug company telling its consumers that there are cheap healthy natural alternatives to the dangerous chemicals they selling to "treat" illness.

Having a duty to the court before the client doesn't mean that the court and attorney are in cahoots against the client. The court is the law; therefore, the attorney's first duty is the the process of law.

It just means that the attorney has a duty to be honest and lawful. It means that an attorney can not lie for the client, can not accept bribes from the client, can not - or rather, should not... they do it plenty of times - withhold information (even in confidence) that relates to the client being guilty. It means that if the lawyer sees the client, or one of his witnesses lying on the stand, he must inform the court.

It means that a layer must present his clients case, in the most persuasive way possible in the absence of any known guilt that the client has. If the client has told the lawyer that he is guilty, it is the duty of the lawyer to, in the process of law and duty to the court, inform the court.

It is also to duty of a lawyer to the court to present the court with information, however embarrassing to the client, that may show that the client has not committed a criminal act.

It is the duty of a lawyer to the court to persuade a client who has submitted false information to the court, for the client to retract.

IT is the duty of a lawyer to the court, to cease representation of a client whom they know will be testifying under perjury...

etc... etc... etc...

You've got to be a nitwit to think that your lawyer is working with the court to convict you.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:55 PM
Oh my - this is NOT a hoax.

A lot of people have done a MOUNTAIN more research than you obviously have "asking a couple of lawyers".

a) lawyers don't know
b) if they don't know it is a conflict of interest of their oath to the crown to tell you about it in any meaningful context

There is a lot more information surrounding this one point that is relevant to it. Therefore it's very easy to dismiss it without comprehending the context.

You have constitutional rights. You have the right to WAIVE those rights. That is what they get you to do when you consent to any kind of unlawful unconstitutional jurisdiction. Then you have no rights and are a slave.


When you name appears in all capitol letters YOU HAVE BEEN CAPITOLISED ON. They are making money off you - better find out how

As Merv says in the Matrix part 2 "It is the why that gives us power. If you come to me without the why then you come to me without power".

WHY! is the right question. It explains everything else and puts you in the position of principal creditor and that's where you need to be. You are not the debter your corporate transmission utility is.

At peace with all.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 01:04 AM
This is an old post but I'd like to comment on it.

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter
So after some more searching I found this:

Montreal, PQ (Reuters) - Sarah Medhurst (nee Black) shocked journalists and legal scholars at a press conference held at the Black family estate Monday when she revealed that Black's Law Dictionary, a highly regarded legal reference text, was originally written as a joke by her eccentric great grandfather Henry Campbell Black.

Medhurst appeared unapologetic, suggesting that the Black family had never tried very hard to keep it a secret. "Have any of you actually taken the time to read it?” she asked, flipping open the renowned text.& nbsp; “Look at page 840 for instance. 'John-a-Nokes'? Or how about page 347? 'Correality – the quality or state of being correal." She then cast a challenging look around the room...

You can read the full article here: and here:

So what does all of this mean?

This my friend, means two things.

1. That capitus diminutio is not real and holds no legal bearing and

2. That Black's Law Dictionary is a hoax and opens up an entirely new can of worms having to do with the fact that it is cited in countless legal situations because:

Black's Law Dictionary is the most widely-used law dictionary for the law of the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It has been cited as legal authority in many Supreme Court cases (see Secondary authority). The latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal word. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions...

From Wikipedia.

I challenge the validity of that alleged Reuters article, because I can't seem to find the original source,, anywhere. All the sites publishing it just link back to eachother,, and

If someone could find the original source, or even an archived version of it from, that would be great.

It's also a bit weird that Reuters would publish such an article concidering Black's Law Dictionary is partially owned by their parent company, Thomason Reuters. You'd think it would be against their business interests.

The real hoax here seems to be this post. Black's Law Dictionary is a valid resource.

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Mad_Hatter

Umm... WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am looking at it right now in MY Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd Edition.

The Lawyer has a conflict of interest! He is bound by the hand that feeds which is the corporate court under admiralty jurisdiction!

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by AJofSkables

Pity that Black's Law Dictionary is now in its Eighth Edition.

This entire bucket o' nonsense is rendered dead if you'll simply go to your public library, ask for the publication, and look it up. All of that nonsense about capital letters and your name...complete and total bunk.

posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:19 PM
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
law and statutes are not the same thing

[edit on 15-8-2009 by unity1]

[edit on 15-8-2009 by unity1]

[edit on 15-8-2009 by unity1]

[edit on 15-8-2009 by unity1]

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 11:51 PM
The reason these roman laws raise flags is because they were under civil law. You also see the downplay of common law in our systems as "case law" when it is garunteed in the Constitution , so the less they teach the lawyers about common law the more it become ancient theory. this subject intruiges me and we sould as soverign people look into this because if this or any of the other ways to stand up to these "acts" in court to stand under common law would be a way to beat off the federal government

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:47 AM
Wow interesting thread! I've become familiar with a lot of new possibilities!

All this time I thought "capitus diminutio" meant "shrunken head!"

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in